[2025:JHHC:34738] 1 Cr. M.P. No.2719 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Cr.M.P. No.2719 of 2024 ------ Pramatha Nath Manna @ P. N. Manna, aged about 70 years, Son of Late Rajendra Nath Manna, residing at P-344A, Block – A, P.O. & P.S. Lake Town, Sub District 24 Pargannas, District North 24 Pargannas (West Bengal) … Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. Pramod Kumar, son of Late Sitaram Choudhary, residing at Village- Dumka Road, P.O. & P.S. Jamtara, District- Jamtara. … Opposite Parties ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Parth S.A. Swaroop Pati, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vineet Kumar Vashistha, Spl.P.P. For the O.P. No.2 : None ------ P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR CHOUDHARY By the Court:- Heard the parties. 2. Though notice has been validly served upon the opposite party No.2 yet not one turns up on behalf of the opposite party No.2 in spite of repeated calls. 3. This Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S., 2023 with the prayer to quash the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 04.06.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara in connection with Jamtara Police Station Case No.351 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No.963 of 2015 whereby and where under cognizance for the offences punishable under Sections 406 [2025:JHHC:34738] 2 Cr. M.P. No.2719 of 2024 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code has been taken by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as yet no witness has been examined in this case during the trial. 5. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner entered into a business transaction with the complainant for engaging the complainant as a Superstockist of the company belonging to the petitioner. The complainant deposited Rs.1,25,000/- as advance amount for delivery of goods. The business transaction between the petitioner and complainant was carried on for a considerable period of time but subsequently, the petitioner did not deliver the goods in respect of Rs.2,00,000/- paid to him on 03.09.2013. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since there is no allegation against the petitioner of playing deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties, hence, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. It is next submitted that in view of the fact that the money was paid towards purchase of goods, it cannot be said that the same was amounted to an entrustment and in the absence of dishonest misappropriation, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is also not made out against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the dispute between the parties is a civil dispute; that too, the dispute has been resolved between the parties by way of a compromise and the Joint Compromise Petition has been filed in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara in connection [2025:JHHC:34738] 3 Cr. M.P. No.2719 of 2024 with G.R. Case No.963 of 2015. Hence, it is submitted that the prayer as prayed for in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition be allowed. 7. Learned Spl.P.P. appearing for the State on the other hand vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner made in this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition and submits that the materials available in the record are sufficient to constitute the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, it is submitted that this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition, being without any merit, be dismissed. 8. Having heard the rival submissions made at the Bar and after going through the materials available in the record, it is pertinent to mention here that it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uma Shankar Gopalika vs. State of Bihar & Anr. reported in (2005) 10 SCC 336, paragraph No.6 of which reads as under:- “6. Xxxx xxxx xxxx It is well settled that every breach of contract would not give rise to an offence of cheating and only in those cases breach of contract would amount to cheating where there was any deception played at the very inception. If the intention to cheat has developed later on, the same cannot amount to cheating. In the present case it has nowhere been stated that at the very inception there was any intention on behalf of the accused persons to cheat which is a condition precedent for an offence under Section 420 IPC.” (Emphasis supplied) that in order to constitute the offence of cheating, the accused must play deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties and if the intention to cheat develops later on, the same will not amount to the offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. [2025:JHHC:34738] 4 Cr. M.P. No.2719 of 2024 9. Now coming to the facts of the case, it is the admitted case of the informant that there was smooth business transaction for a considerable period of time between the parties. Hence, there is absolutely no allegation that the petitioner played deception since the beginning of the transaction between the parties. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true in their entirety still, the offence punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 10. So far as the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is concerned, it is a settled principle of law as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Binod Kumar & Others vs. State of Bihar & Another reported in (2014) 10 SCC 663 para-18 of which reads as under :- “18. In the present case, looking at the allegations in the complaint on the face of it, we find that no allegations are made attracting the ingredients of Section 405 IPC. Likewise, there are no allegations as to cheating or the dishonest intention of the appellants in retaining the money in order to have wrongful gain to themselves or causing wrongful loss to the complainant. Excepting the bald allegations that the appellants did not make payment to the second respondent and that the appellants utilised the amounts either by themselves or for some other work, there is no iota of allegation as to the dishonest intention in misappropriating the property. To make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the appellants. It must also be shown that the appellants dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same. The mere fact that the appellants did not pay the money to the complainant does not amount to criminal breach of trust.” Emphasis supplied) That to make out a case of criminal breach of trust, it is not sufficient to show that money has been retained by the accused persons but it must [2025:JHHC:34738] 5 Cr. M.P. No.2719 of 2024 also be shown that the accused persons dishonestly disposed of the same in some way or dishonestly retained the same and further the mere fact that the appellants did not pay the money to the complainant does not amount to criminal breach of trust. 11. Now coming to the facts of the case, since the money was paid by the complainant to the petitioner for purchase of certain goods, the same cannot be termed as entrustment under Section 405 of the Indian Penal Code. There is absolutely no allegation against the petitioner of dishonest misappropriation of any entrusted property and in the absence of the same, this Court is of the considered view that even if the entire allegations made against the petitioner are considered to be true still, the offence punishable under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against the petitioner. 12. In view of the fact that neither the offence is made out; more so, because of the compromise has also effected between the parties and the Joint Compromise Petition has been filed in the court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara, this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of the criminal proceeding against the petitioner will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that this is a fit case where the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 04.06.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara in connection with Jamtara Police Station Case No.351 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No.963 of 2015, be quashed and set aside. [2025:JHHC:34738] 6 Cr. M.P. No.2719 of 2024 13. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceeding including the order taking cognizance dated 04.06.2018 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jamtara in connection with Jamtara Police Station Case No.351 of 2015 corresponding to G.R. Case No.963 of 2015, is quashed and set aside. 14. In the result, this Criminal Miscellaneous Petition is allowed. (Anil Kumar Choudhary, J.) High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi Dated the 20th of November, 2025 AFR/ Saroj Uploaded on 26/11/2025